EHR Feedback

For people who hate Microsoft and Windows, MacPractice is probably still the best alternative. I looked at Windows-based systems when we were looking to buy an EMR and they are all painfully ugly. I could not stare at such an ugly interface 12 hours a day - no way. Like I could not stare at a Windows-based computer anymore.
So, MacPractice is easier on the eyes. Clearly, everybody uses an EMR differently, and MP may work better for other specialties, or even for physicians in the same specialty as I am, who are less obsessive-compulsive about their notes and the design of their notes, attachments, etc.
It's not a bad system, and maybe I was a little harsh. It does have problems, and I imagine they all do. Customization is not great, unless you are willing to spend A LOT of money to pay their people to make all your notes, templates, etc. For me that was not possible - it would have been tens of thousands of dollars, unaffordable.
Maybe I would go with a web-based system now, given the remote issues we have had. Ultimately, the remote connections to the EMR are dictated primarily by the network speed. In Austin, Texas, believe it or not, our maximum residential speed is 50 download and 5 upload (Mbps). Once Google Fiber is available next year, and hopefully Time Warner goes out of business, it may be very different. View feedback

I don't have some of the modules that are available - for example, e-prescribing, lab interface, CPT coding, e-claim submission. My practice is too small to justify the added costs of these. As a psychiatrist, I have less frequent need for some of these functionalities - the range of CPT codes I use is narrow, for example, and it was simpler to enter them manually. More than half of the prescriptions I write are for medications that can't be faxed or e-prescribed, so the cost of the module for e-prescribing was not justifiable.
MacPractice has several corporate partnerships - one is AutoRemind, an automated, very flexible reminder system that synchronizes with the schedule of appointments.
MacPractice has all the required meaningful use items, but I don't use most of them, so I couldn't answer questions about all of them. They are rigorous about recommending security procedures - the current version stores data in a more secure manner and they recommend using "file vault" encryption - a pop-up reminds you to set that up every time you log in until you actually do it.
MacPractice is diligent about keeping up with certification requirements, and other outside systemic changes. They are very responsive to suggestions and feedback. The phone support is superb, and quick easy remote screen connection is available when needed.
There is the option to store data on their servers. I don't do that because I am a solo practitioner with a relatively small database.View feedback

This is a program that has poor integration, a lot of non-medical jargon, and fails to run well. The program crashes at least daily and takes much time to restart.
The company lied about it's ease of use with WiFi though it emphasizes it on the website. View feedback